Duke of Sussex & Others vs ANL: thread 5

[bluegreygreen]

This is the fifth thread discussing the case Prince Harry (and 6 others) brought against the Daily Mail (Associated Newspapers Limited; ANL) for alleged unlawful information gathering (UIG).
The claimants were: Prince Harry (PH); Doreen Lawrence (DL); Liz Hurley (EH/LH); Elton John (EJ); David Furnish (DF); Simon Hughes (SH); Sadie Frost (SF). They were represented by David Sherborne (DS).
The defendant (ANL) was represented by Anthony White (AMW).

Judgement was handed down by Judge Nicklin on 7th July 2026.
All claims were dismissed.
Links to the summary and full judgement are below.
We are currently awaiting decisions around costs, with the next hearing due on 29-30th July.

The threads to date were thorough discussions of the evidence (so far as we were able to obtain it), with posters giving links and explaining their views.
Following the judgement, we discussed the judgement itself, the reaction, statements made by different parties and ongoing relevant issues.

We have mostly kept things civil by avoiding more general discussion on Royal Family members, which can become partisan, and trying not to be derailed from the main topic of the thread.

We have occasionally included (when things slowed with the title case) other cases or discussions with a specific theme of free speech/press freedom, particularly when related to those with money or power preventing others from speaking.

Links to previous threads
Thread 1
Thread 2
Thread 3
Thread 4

There was limited direct reporting from court after the celebrities gave evidence; what there we followed on this link
Sky news link to court case

Summary judgement

Full judgement

Sometimes, when reading another saccharine brief to People magazine, or hear about chaos on their secret ‘preferred journalists’ whatsapp group, as revealed in their will they/wont they trip antics, I’m reminded that H&M have been absolutely clear on their stance with the media since their flounce days- the only good media is outlets that will write puff pieces. Thats the real driver and why H insisted on shoehorning M in to his testimony, completely irrelevantly.

“In the spring of 2020, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will be adopting a revised media approach to ensure diverse and open access to their work. This updated approach aims to:
• Engage with grassroots media organisations and young, up-and-coming journalists;
• Invite specialist media to specific events/engagements to give greater access to their cause-driven activities, widening the spectrum of news coverage;
• Provide access to credible media outlets focused on objective news reporting to cover key moments and events;
• Continue to share information directly to the wider public via their official communications channels;
• No longer participate in the Royal Rota system.”

The uk press is not a monopoly. It has differing views and publishes different stories and campaigns on different things. There’s choice. It’s far more regulated than SM and on line mis information.

Everyone seems to be missing the point.

As mentioned earlier, it’s about access to redress. The way the system is set up in the UK, only very, very rich people dare pursue a case.

Gosh, that is farcical now in hindsight, a bit like ‘call me Harry’ sounded like a great idea for all of 5 seconds.

Now reduced to giving ‘exclusives’ to US and People Mag, and back to schmoozing the dreaded DM journalists for a few column inches and dropping cryptic Insta posts in the hope of getting some interest and traction.

The political balance of broadcast media is more closely regulated but many radio and tv news programmes take their agenda from newspapers.

And the vast majority of British print media is owned by a concentrated cluster of wealthy individuals and multi-billionaire families such as the Murdoch family and News Corp. (The Sun and Times) and the Rothermere family (the Daily Mail) whose politics lean heavily to the right. The Telegraph, aka The RF’s mouthpiece, is now owned by s German company but until relatively recently was owned by the Barclay brothers.

Most people do not believe that a small group of wealthy proprietors and global magnates owning the majority of our major national news outlets, that create a structural risk of unchecked partisan interference in public life is particularly good for the UK or democracy but obviously many here disagree!

That’s not unique to the UK at all, as you are comparing it to France, French media is a very similar landscape, a handful of billionaires with control of the media.

It's hardly surprising that major businesses can be owned by wealthy proprietors. Where people have disagreed with you is that the small 'cluster' of newspaper groups does not constitute a monopoly.
Indeed, part of the delay in the takeover of the Telegraph was ensuring it met all the requirements of the Competition and Markets Authority.

You have, of course, left out of your post the publicly traded company Reach plc, which owns the (left-leaning) Mirror Group and has more newspapers (and a wider reach) than any of the other groups you've mentioned; and also the Scott Trust which owns the Guardian.

The primary concern that has been discussed throughout these threads is the concept of rich and powerful people trying to control what other people say.

And yet in France the principle of the right to a private life is more firmly enshrined in law.

More generally, I can’t believe that posters seem to be defending some of the worst elements of the aggressive, ruthless, sensationalist, misogynistic British press and are trying to make out it is comparable with that of other countries!

Monarchists will argue that a pig is a hen in order to further their condemnation of Harry!

Sure France and loads of other countries have gossip magazines, but the UK’s "gutter press" operates with a level of ferocity and political influence that is globally infamous.

It's a pretty poor point if so.

What you seem to be saying is that in France the press are free to publish long lens photos of women sunbathing in a private home, or of her young children enjoying a family holiday in supposed privacy. But that's OK because they can take the publication to court long after the photos have already been published and seen by millions?

@Slategrey788 Please could you moderate your tone? This thread is not about Royal Family personalities.
We have had 5 threads of mostly very respectful discussion, even where we have differed.

From the OP:

We have mostly kept things civil by avoiding more general discussion on Royal Family members, which can become partisan, and trying not to be derailed from the main topic of the thread.

We have occasionally included (when things slowed with the title case) other cases or discussions with a specific theme of free speech/press freedom, particularly when related to those with money or power preventing others from speaking.

If you want to interpret it that way, fine!

But you know that is not what I am saying.

Of course it’s not ok for the press to intrude on private family life with long lenses.

I think we shoulf accept that paparazzi of all nationalities do this bc vast amounts of money are paid in exchange for photos. The UK press try and spin the story that British journalists are less agressive than foreign paps but it’s patently untrue.

What matters is legal accessibility to the remedy.

I think we shoulf accept that paparazzi of all nationalities do this bc vast amounts of money are paid in exchange for photos.

"Paparazzi' barely exist now.

But it is a fact that in recent years, the most flagrant violations of the privacy of members of the BRF have happened in France.

. The UK press try and spin the story that British journalists are less agressive than foreign paps but it’s patently untrue.

I've never heard this story being 'spun', and nor do the British press speak with one voice.

However, it is again, a fact that the British press do not take or publish photos of the royals 'off duty'. The European, certainly the French, media have no such qualms. Not in a million years would the 'Closer' photos have appeared in any British publication.

What matters is legal accessibility to the remedy.

So I was right! It IS what you are saying!

Blatant invasions of privacy are fine so long as you can sue the perpetrators after the fact?

Pretty obvious you've got some agenda here.

Exactly @IcedPurple.

The media landscape in the UK has changed significantly since the 1990s-2000s, when there was an issue with paparazzis.

That is no longer the case, and the fact that the two examples of intrusion on the Cambridge/Wales family came from the French media shows that clearly.

The press in the UK stick, in the main, to the Editors' Code of Practice, regulated by IPSO, which works well to prevent such issues.

Editors' Code of Practice

Pretty obvious you've got some agenda here
.Sorry but this makes me laugh honestly in the general context of the RF board!

All of the posters suddenly defending the misogynistic populist rag that is Daily Mail and other right wing tabloids and suddenly feeling sorry for poor wee Dan Wootten and Piers Morgan don’t have an agenda I suppose?

It’s basically fine now apparently that the UK’s right wing press hold so much sway and influence and percentage of the market that they can basically decide who becomes our next PM? And it’s fine that our so-called democracy is severely impacted by this?

And of course it is very important that not only rich and privileged have access to legal redress, That’s not an agenda, that’s basic fairness.

To give credit where it's due, I don't believe the British press ever published Catherine's topless photos, not even the UK edition of the magazine that originally published them in France.

Yes, you have an obvious agenda and are seeking to drag this thread off topic to pursue that agenda. Your last post has confirmed that.

I won't be indulging you. Enjoy your Sunday.

Yes. Rather like Meghan, certain posters are living in the past.

The tabloids really were horrible in the period you mention. No argument there. But things have changed considerably since then, not only with regard to British tabloids in particular, but to the entire media environment. The traditional printed press is increasingly irrelevant. It's all about social media now. That's where the real battles are taking place.

So you do have an agenda! , clearly if you wish to parrot these old talking points in defence of the Sussex’s that’s your prerogative, however as @bluegreygreenhas already stated and I will reiterate this thread is one in a series of threads discussing the court case , the posters here have followed all the cases , most of which have nothing to do with Harry at all .
many posters on here are not interested in the usual RF board bickering, perhaps you should take your comments to an appropriate thread.

And so the disproportionate ongoing negative reporting about H&M is perfectly justified and balanced I suppose, even though they haven’t been arrested for potential criminality like Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor?

I suggest we all refrain from further indulging a derail of what had been a very informed, interesting and on topic discussion.

irrelevant , derailing and completely off topic on the thread in question.

Sorry didn’t see your post .

I’m getting the word…

I will happily go away Jeffgoldblum but with respect, I think your post comes across as somewhat hypocritical when criticising mine for derailing. (Or do in-jokes about pigeons and gifs about cheese not count?).

Also I chose to make my points during a lull when everyone on here is waiting for the payment judgements, so I dispute the fact that it is sending the thread off course particularly.

I think my points about French privacy laws have been valid ones and all long ongoing threads tend to broaden out in subject matter from time to time. So I stand by my right to post thank you.

Have a good Sunday afternoon everyone (and I mean that genuinely).

@Slategrey788 You continued to make partisan points after I referred you back to the guidance in the original post, so I do think your posting was derailing.

You will be very welcome back on the thread at any point for genuine discussion of the main topics.